Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned metric set and paging behavior, but says nothing about ordering, rate limits, or what happens for campaigns with no sends — modest added context beyond structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and ending with the paging hint; no filler. The metric list is slightly dense but informative rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the figures an agent will receive, which is the key missing context. Remaining gaps (sort order, empty-result behavior) are minor for a simple paginated read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already document defaults, maximums, and the next_offset paging idiom. The description's 'Use limit/offset to page' restates the schema rather than adding format or behavior detail, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and enumerates the metrics returned (sent, accepted, opened, clicked, bounced, unsubscribed, with ratios), which is more than the title's 'List campaign reports'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like laposta_get_report or laposta_list_campaigns, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is 'Use limit/offset to page', which covers mechanics but not when to choose this tool over laposta_get_report (single report) or laposta_list_campaigns (campaign metadata). Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.